Your expensive room treatments might probably making your system sound worse (and why you need to read the attached article)

[exupgh12]

An eye-opening article that challenges everything we think we know about speaker setup. The author, Richard Mak, has visited 500+ audiophile homes worldwide, and set up over 500 audio systems, and he's dropping some serious truth bombs:

• 40% of the rooms he visited (including "professionally designed" ones) had their L/R channels reversed
• Many rooms with expensive acoustic treatments actually sound worse than untreated living rooms
• Most people who can quote room acoustic theory can't properly position their speakers
• Those expensive bass traps you're planning to buy? You might not need them at all

The article introduces a practical method called "Room Coupling" that can transform your system's sound in 20 minutes without spending a dime. No PhD in acoustics required. No fancy measurement tools needed.

What really hit home was his observation that many audiophiles start by heavily treating their rooms and buying oversized speakers before even understanding the basics. Been there, done that, right?

The best part? The method is explained step-by-step with specific tracks to use and exactly what to listen for. It's not about theory - it's about results you can hear.

Before you consider spending another dollar on room treatments or upgrade your system, read this article. It might save you thousands and actually help you achieve that elusive perfect soundstage you've been chasing.

Article link

What do you think? Has anyone tried this method? I'm particularly intrigued by his claim that proper speaker positioning can make even small speakers sound like much larger ones.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Before Richard published the article he sent a draft to me for review and comment. Richard has vast experience in this area, and I think the article advocates a very interesting technique!

 

[Al M.]

Very interesting article, thanks.

I like this part especially:

In contrast, great-sounding rooms typically come from people who dedicate time to listening, refining their skills, and experimenting with speaker placement. Through hard work and plenty of trial and error, they learn how small adjustments affect the soundstage—and it typically pays off—including those who haven’t read a single book on room acoustics or measured their room. And there are great sounding rooms for those who have knowledge too, of course.

A few points about the article:

1. Reversing left and right? That's silly. Orchestral violins or violins in a string quartet are usually on the left, so there is no way to screw that up. Oh, you don't listen to classical music? Well, never mind.

2. Yes, I have extensively experimented with speaker positioning and I agree that it is crucially important; and indeed, small changes can make a world of difference. My speakers are also far out into the room and, yes, moving them forward (or backwards) can also greatly help with cleaning up the bass. As the author suggests, I have done it all by ear, without measurements.

3. The 1/3 rule for placing speakers left to right along the width of the room is nice, but I don't have that luxury since my room is rather narrow, 12 feet. The author's rooms were/are 17.5 and 16 feet wide, respectively. His recommendations on that don't apply to my room; they would lead to an unacceptably narrow soundstage.

4. The author is obsessed with soundstage, but I find tonal balance and projection of sound energy the first and foremost consideration when it comes to speaker positioning (along length and width of room; level of toe-in) . A complex equation of speakers and a given, particular room that can only be solved by painstaking, time-intensive trial and error.

5. Soundstage is for me more (not entirely so) a byproduct of positioning for tonal balance and projection of sound energy. And yes, my soundstage is great, considering the possibilities given by my room.

6. While I have extensively experimented with speaker positioning, I find the idea entirely laughable that in my particular room just speaker positioning could solve my bass problem.The employment of Isothermal TubeTraps from ASC was crucial; the switch from regular to Isothermal TubeTraps made a huge difference.

7. Yes, I am aware of the damping properties of acoustic treatments and I have strived to minimize them by, as much as possible, removal of carpeting. However, not employing extensive room treatments is not possible in my situation. The remedy of removing acoustic treatments must not be worse than the disease. My room is not as dampened as the worst case scenario that the author describes; I can listen for hours without my ears ever feeling oppressed (and yes, I know that feeling as the author describes).

8. As the author advises, my speakers are not too big for my room. Having been keenly aware of that potential problem for a very long time, I have made sure not to fall into that trap which seems to catch many audiophiles. My speakers are 4 feet tall, the front baffle is no more than 10 inches wide, and the main drivers are 6.5 inches large (quasi line array of four midrange/bass drivers per channel all receiving the same signal).

 

[godofwealth]

A lot of these problems are caused by the technology that most audiophiles use for loudspeakers, namely box loudspeakers that radiate in an uncontrollable fashion. One of the primary benefits of electrostatic loudspeakers is that there’s no or little acoustic energy in the lateral direction. Peter Walker, the “Quadfather” spent 18 years of his life from 1963-1981 on the model that became known as ESL-63, only released in 1981, after he successfully solved this problem with an ingenious arrangement of delay lines so that the speakers emulated a point source like a stone thrown in a pond. Having experimented with innumerable box loudspeakers over 40 years, I have seen time and time again why this trips up many loudspeaker designers. Electrostatic loudspeakers solve this problem in ways that are really hard to match with conventional box loudspeakers.

My current reference, the Soundlab G9-7c, is 9 feet tall, and has an enormous radiating surface. It does not use Walker’s delay lines. But the panel surface is curved to give better directivity at a 45 degree angle. Yes, it’s large and very expensive, but it gives you a way to solve problems that are hard to match with multidriver cone loudspeakers in a box. That is always an inferior solution in my experience.

 

[Robh3606]

Interesting and enjoyable but nothing really new. More common sense and not falling into the "every room" needs extensive treatment beyond rugs drapes and furniture that we all have. Agree placement is the key and once you find your speaker and listening positions it goes a long way to adding to the enjoyment.

Rob

 

[thekong]

An eye-opening article that challenges everything we think we know about speaker setup. The author, Richard Mak, has visited 500+ audiophile homes worldwide, and set up over 500 audio systems, and he's dropping some serious truth bombs:

• 40% of the rooms he visited (including "professionally designed" ones) had their L/R channels reversed
• Many rooms with expensive acoustic treatments actually sound worse than untreated living rooms
• Most people who can quote room acoustic theory can't properly position their speakers
• Those expensive bass traps you're planning to buy? You might not need them at all

The article introduces a practical method called "Room Coupling" that can transform your system's sound in 20 minutes without spending a dime. No PhD in acoustics required. No fancy measurement tools needed.

What really hit home was his observation that many audiophiles start by heavily treating their rooms and buying oversized speakers before even understanding the basics. Been there, done that, right?

The best part? The method is explained step-by-step with specific tracks to use and exactly what to listen for. It's not about theory - it's about results you can hear.

Before you consider spending another dollar on room treatments or upgrade your system, read this article. It might save you thousands and actually help you achieve that elusive perfect soundstage you've been chasing.

Article link

What do you think? Has anyone tried this method? I'm particularly intrigued by his claim that proper speaker positioning can make even small speakers sound like much larger ones.

Yes, our audiophile group in Hong Kong has been very close with Ivan Li, the original advocate of this Room Coupling method! Actually, I believe he coined the term Room Coupling!

Just to add to Richard’s article, Ivan Li prefers rectangular room with all dimensions (D, W, H) not having any ratios in whole numbers (ie. 1, 2, 3 etc), and not even close to them, say 1.1, 1.9 etc, better be like 1.3, 1.7 etc.

A number of members in our group, including myself, followed this doctrine when choosing / designing our audio rooms, and all of them has been very successful, at least to my ears

A bit more history, Ivan Li was an early, if not the first, user of Magneplanar speakers in Hong Kong, started with the original Tympani. He also started to develop the Room Coupling method with Magneplanar speakers, but interesting, the method seems to work well with horns and conventional cone type speakers as well!

About small speaker sounding big with this placement method, I have personally auditioned a pair of 3/5a in one of Ivan Li’s audio rooms, around 13’ X 22’ in size. Yes, if you close your eyes, you would not believe it is from such a small speaker. Sure, comparing to bigger speakers, it was lacking a bit on that bottom octave bass, but it just sounded incredible above that!

 

[Lee]

This is an interesting approach but it feels overly complex. Parts are somewhat similar to what I have been learning from Jim Smith. Jim’s method starts with the listening chair position. You use pink noise and RTA analysis and adjust for the smoothest low end. It also involves listening to a select series of tracks to judge performance. Jim has voiced thousands more systems than Richard but I know him as well via my time at Part-Time Audiophile and I know him to be thorough.

On a separate note, the danger from too many panels is real. I know this from recording studio work (from moving gobos in and out of RCA Studio A). A few people figured I needed bass traps but a Vicoustics analysis found that I just needed a wedge on the ceiling/front wall intersection.

 

[Lee]

Yes, our audiophile group in Hong Kong has been very close with Ivan Li, the original advocate of this Room Coupling method! Actually, I believe he coined the term Room Coupling!

Just to add to Richard’s article, Ivan Li prefers rectangular room with all dimensions (D, W, H) not having any ratios in whole numbers (ie. 1, 2, 3 etc), and not even close to them, say 1.1, 1.9 etc, better be like 1.3, 1.7 etc.

A number of members in our group, including myself, followed this doctrine when choosing / designing our audio rooms, and all of them has been very successful, at least to my ears

A bit more history, Ivan Li was an early, if not the first, user of Magneplanar speakers in Hong Kong, started with the original Tympani. He also started to develop the Room Coupling method with Magneplanar speakers, but interesting, the method seems to work well with horns and conventional cone type speakers as well!

About small speaker sounding big with this placement method, I have personally auditioned a pair of 3/5a in one of Ivan Li’s audio rooms, around 13’ X 22’ in size. Yes, if you close your eyes, you would not believe it is from such a small speaker. Sure, comparing to bigger speakers, it was lacking a bit on that bottom octave bass, but it just sounded incredible above that!

Thekong,

Jim Smith has found that…

(the distance between L-R tweeters) / (distance from right tweeter to right ear) = 0.82 to 0.84

on systems when optimized for musical engagement.

Can you share the ratios of the systems among your friends?

My curiosity is if the ratios match your method. My own experience confirms this ratio is very accurate.

 

[Al M.]

Thekong,

Jim Smith has found that (the distance between L-R tweeters) / (distance from right tweeter to right ear) is generally around 0.82-0.84 on systems when optimized for musical engagement.

Interestingly, I measured my ratio yesterday and it turned out to be 0.837 (0.84 basically). I didn't shoot for that by prior planning, but that's where I arrived at.

6'5" (77 inches) tweeter to tweeter / 7'8" (92 inches) ear to tweeter

77/92 = 0.837

 

[ecwl]

Thank you for sharing the article. It is interesting that the author prioritizes soundstage first whereas I personally prioritize tone first.
And because of the way my room is setup (partly for aesthetic reasons), I had more limited soundstage depth which I eventually improved using thick bass traps along the front wall (amongst other acoustic treatments).

I also agree with other posters that I would try to optimize the seating position first as Jim Smith suggested before optimizing speaker position.
I'm also the type of person who likes to use a microphone as a guide for finding optimal seating position and speaker depth position. I find it's easier and more consistent as it's less dependent on my listening fatigue. The speaker width position and toe-in I usually dial in by ear though.

But the best part of the article is accepting that we all have different priorities in terms of the sound we want to get from our stereo. While most of my friends' setup are not optimal for me, I often hear and appreciate why they're optimal for my audiophile friends. Listening and talking about this with others would often lead to new optimizations within my own system.

 

[thekong]

Thekong,

Jim Smith has found that…

(the distance between L-R tweeters) / (distance from right tweeter to right ear) = 0.82 to 0.84

on systems when optimized for musical engagement.

Can you share the ratios of the systems among your friends?

My curiosity is if the ratios match your method. My own experience confirms this ratio is very accurate.

Hi Lee, afraid we have never measured that distance ratio! Just for reference, in Ivan Li’s roughly 13’ wide audio rooms, with Magneplanar 3.5 speakers (tweeter placed at the inside edge), the outside edges of the speakers are very close to the side walls, certainly less than 1’, around 9” - 11”!

In my current 16’ wide room, with the Apogee Fullrange (also tweeter at the inside edge), I also placed the speakers around 11” from the side walls. The room’s length is 26’, the plane of the speakers around 10.5’ from the front wall, my seat around another 10.5’ from the plane of the speakers and 5’ to the back walls.

Based on my observation, with the Room Coupling method, in a rectangular room, speakers facing the shorter wall, the optimal plane of the speakers would often be close to 40% of the room’s length from the front wall.

 

[Al M.]

It is interesting that the author prioritizes soundstage first whereas I personally prioritize tone first.

+1

 

[exupgh12]

Very interesting article, thanks.

I like this part especially:

In contrast, great-sounding rooms typically come from people who dedicate time to listening, refining their skills, and experimenting with speaker placement. Through hard work and plenty of trial and error, they learn how small adjustments affect the soundstage—and it typically pays off—including those who haven’t read a single book on room acoustics or measured their room. And there are great sounding rooms for those who have knowledge too, of course.

A few points about the article:

1. Reversing left and right? That's silly. Orchestral violins or violins in a string quartet are usually on the left, so there is no way to screw that up. Oh, you don't listen to classical music? Well, never mind.


3. The 1/3 rule for placing speakers left to right along the width of the room is nice, but I don't have that luxury since my room is rather narrow, 12 feet. The author's rooms were/are 17.5 and 16 feet wide, respectively. His recommendations on that don't apply to my room; they would lead to an unacceptably narrow soundstage.

I think that's a general rule, of course, every home\room has its limitations

4. The author is obsessed with soundstage, but I find tonal balance and projection of sound energy the first and foremost consideration when it comes to speaker positioning (along length and width of room; level of toe-in) . A complex equation of speakers and a given, particular room that can only be solved by painstaking, time-intensive trial and error.

each to his prioritizing.

5. Soundstage is for me more (not entirely so) a byproduct of positioning for tonal balance and projection of sound energy. And yes, my soundstage is great, considering the possibilities given by my room.

6. While I have extensively experimented with speaker positioning, I find the idea entirely laughable that in my particular room just speaker positioning could solve my bass problem.The employment of Isothermal TubeTraps from ASC was crucial; the switch from regular to Isothermal TubeTraps made a huge difference.

I agree, that positioning itself would solve the issue, but finding the right size speaker, and placing it carefully would lower the need to massive invest in bass observers.

7. Yes, I am aware of the damping properties of acoustic treatments and I have strived to minimize them by, as much as possible, removal of carpeting. However, not employing extensive room treatments is not possible in my situation. The remedy of removing acoustic treatments must not be worse than the disease. My room is not as dampened as the worst case scenario that the author describes; I can listen for hours without my ears ever feeling oppressed (and yes, I know that feeling as the author describes).

everything in the room influences the result, may it be the diffusers, bass traps, bookshelf, coffee table, or carpet. The sound we hear is the interaction of the room with speakers.

8. As the author advises, my speakers are not too big for my room. Having been keenly aware of that potential problem for a very long time, I have made sure not to fall into that trap which seems to catch many audiophiles. My speakers are 4 feet tall, the front baffle is no more than 10 inches wide, and the main drivers are 6.5 inches large (quasi line array of four midrange/bass drivers per channel all receiving the same signal).

 

[bonzo75]

What really hit home was his observation that many audiophiles start by heavily treating their rooms and buying oversized speakers before even understanding the basics. Been there, done that, right?

Around 95% of audiophiles

I'm particularly intrigued by his claim that proper speaker positioning can make even small speakers sound like much larger ones.

can do in most cases, only big horns exceed that.

 

[exupgh12]

This is an interesting approach but it feels overly complex. Parts are somewhat similar to what I have been learning from Jim Smith. Jim’s method starts with the listening chair position. You use pink noise and RTA analysis and adjust for the smoothest low end. It also involves listening to a select series of tracks to judge performance. Jim has voiced thousands more systems than Richard but I know him as well via my time at Part-Time Audiophile and I know him to be thorough.

On a separate note, the danger from too many panels is real. I know this from recording studio work (from moving gobos in and out of RCA Studio A). A few people figured I needed bass traps but a Vicoustics analysis found that I just needed a wedge on the ceiling/front wall intersection.

In one or two sentences: This article presents a practical and straightforward method for speaker positioning ("Room Coupling Method") developed from years of visiting hundreds of audiophile homes, aiming to achieve optimal sound system performance without expensive acoustic treatments or deep technical knowledge. It's worth reading because it offers a proven, practical approach to dramatically improving sound quality at no additional cost.

Regarding your personal experience: You raise an excellent point about the value of different methodologies. While Jim Smith's 0.83% rule and Magico's room width proportioning offer structured approaches, and the Room Coupling Method provides another perspective, each can contribute valuable insights to achieving optimal speaker placement. The key is understanding that these various methods aren't mutually exclusive - they can complement each other, giving audiophiles multiple tools for optimizing their specific listening environments.

 

[thekong]

Regarding your personal experience: You raise an excellent point about the value of different methodologies. While Jim Smith's 0.83% rule and Magico's room width proportioning offer structured approaches, and the Room Coupling Method provides another perspective, each can contribute valuable insights to achieving optimal speaker placement. The key is understanding that these various methods aren't mutually exclusive - they can complement each other, giving audiophiles multiple tools for optimizing their specific listening environments.

The good thing about all these speakers placement methods is that it doesn’t cost you anything, other than the time and effort in moving the speakers. If you try one method and not happy with the result, just try another method until you find the best one for you

 

[exupgh12]

The good thing about all these speakers placement methods is that it doesn’t cost you anything, other than the time and effort in moving the speakers. If you try one method and not happy with the result, just try another method until you find the best one for you

Each method—whether Jim Smith's, Magico's, or Richard Mak's—costs exactly ZERO dollars: just you, your speakers, and maybe a patient partner watching as you perform an audiophile dance, shuffling speakers around your room.

 

[itay123]

A very interesting article and wakes up those who need to be woken up
personally What I always say and have said, both in front of amateurs and/colleagues,
The placement of the speakers and their orientation according to the listener is the most critical and about 50% treatment is in fact finished even before I have even adjusted the components and cables.
Minimal intervention as much as possible, whether with it through natural acoustics and various accessories or whether it is advanced calibration setups, which in my experience do (more) harm than good, from experience with the best calibration setups .
Definitely an interesting article, but personally feels like a broken record, which is what I've been saying for years As for minimum intervention and maximum coordination and position.

 

[hopkins]

Another interesting point in the article:

"I’ve found no correlation between money spent and sound quality—whether the system is budget-friendly or extremely high-priced, the outcome can be equally rewarding or disappointing."

 

[hopkins]

A very interesting article and wakes up those who need to be woken up
personally What I always say and have said, both in front of amateurs and/colleagues,
The placement of the speakers and their orientation according to the listener is the most critical and about 50% treatment is in fact finished even before I have even adjusted the components and cables.
Minimal intervention as much as possible, whether with it through natural acoustics and various accessories or whether it is advanced calibration setups, which in my experience do (more) harm than good, from experience with the best calibration setups .
Definitely an interesting article, but personally feels like a broken record, which is what I've been saying for years As for minimum intervention and maximum coordination and position.

The point made regarding room acoustics is not that it is bad per se, but that many tend to treat the room first, without going through the process of speaker/listening position setup.

Many acousticians will tell you the same thing.